Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)
Our first current petition, PE535, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to inquire into past institutional child abuse, in particular of those children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders, to make an unreserved apology for those said state bodies and to urge the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.
The e-mail that we received this morning from John Deighan gives a full response, in which he says explicitly what Cardinal O'Brien did. On the basis of that response, it is reasonable to close the petition.
Chris Daly called me this morning before I came to the meeting to say that he had received by post to his home a letter from John Deighan. He told me that he was not happy with the content of the letter and attempted to e-mail it to me so that I could distribute it. However, I did not receive the letter so I cannot distribute it.
What we have is a copy of the contents of the letter—John Deighan has advised us of what he put into his letter to Chris Daly.
It is an extract.
I think that Jim Johnston, our clerk, will be able to help us.
Sorry, Rosie. I spoke to John Deighan this morning. He said that the e-mail that he circulated, which has been tabled for members, is a copy of what he sent to Mr Daly.
Okay. Although I could not look at the whole letter, I know that Chris Daly is not content with it. Chris Daly, David Whelan and many others are having difficulty in getting access to the records to which they were promised access. They have been told on numerous occasions that there were fires or that records were lost in transit, but that has not been proven; they have seen no record of a fire.
The first thing that strikes me about what Rosie Kane is asking for is that an independent commissioner would not take kindly to an instruction from us for him to do one thing or another. We would have difficulty if we were to get into that line of debate with him. From what we see from the correspondence, the issues have not been addressed. If we are to ensure that the questions are answered, we have to go to the Executive, as it was the Executive that set up the format under which the information was to be sought. If there are problems, we have to find out from the Executive what is going on.
I have the e-mail in front of me, and if you read just the one sentence it looks like an apology, but if you read it in the context of the whole letter it is perhaps not so apologetic, as Chris Daly has pointed out. However, that is a different issue, as the convener said. I am concerned about the progress that is being made. I think that the committee did a fabulous job in getting people in and holding a debate in Parliament, and we were assured by the minister that the ball would start rolling and that people would be interviewed and would be able to get their records. However, it appears from speaking to people that there has been no movement on that. We had people from INCAS here just a couple of weeks ago, and there had been no movement and we were no further forward.
I support your view, convener. There are two definite issues that need to be addressed. We are beginning to lose sight of the real issue in worrying about whether or not the quality or level of apology from Cardinal O'Brien is sufficient. That is not the issue. In my view, he has apologised. The real issue is that which the minister undertook to address. I am disappointed to hear Sandra White saying that, despite the undertakings given in the debate last year, the minister has not progressed those matters further, as he promised. That is something that we should be much more outraged by. That is what we should address and it is also much more within our remit to tackle that problem.
I have not spoken to Chris Daly, but I think that what is bothering him is the context in which the cardinal's apology was given, as it was given as part of a general television interview. If we consider the apology that was given on behalf of the nation by the First Minister, what was happening there was unmistakable. The First Minister made a clear apology about the issue, and the Catholic Church has it within its power to do that too. It could come out and make a specific, distinct and unmistakable apology. Its press department, or whoever was appropriate, could do that, rather than the apology being made as part of a television interview about other general issues.
I appreciate the point that you are making. I spoke to John Deighan about that point myself, because I was interested in the interpretation given in the letter from INCAS, which said that the original highly publicised apology was that of Father Gilhooley, and that there was an add-on apology to all other victims. That is one aspect of the petitioner's concern. They then went on to say that the subsequent apology was not covered very well in the media, and was therefore not so publicly recognised as the original apology. However, John Deighan assures me that both apologies were put out to the media in the same way, and that it transpired that the media chose not to cover them to the same extent. You cannot hold the Catholic Church responsible if the media do or do not cover an apology prominently. For INCAS to say that the apology is not sufficient because the media did not cover it is not the same as saying that the apology was not publicised. I do not want to sound as though I am defending what the church is doing, but I spoke to John Deighan and got from him answers to the questions that I put, which were the same as those that you posed, Campbell. His response to me was that the apologies were put out through the same sources, and that the church was not responsible for the subsequent media coverage.
I think that it is in our notes that INCAS asked for a meeting with the Catholic Church or John Deighan and got no response. If they had a meeting, perhaps that would be the time and place for the Catholic Church to make an unequivocal apology.
I do not disagree, but are we on this committee capable of saying whether they should or should not have a meeting? We have no authority over the church to order it to conduct any meeting, although I would encourage it to do so. I have spoken to John Deighan and encouraged him to do other things, but it is for the church to decide what it wants to do. However, John Scott is right that we must stay focused on what we can do.
I agree. The last time that we discussed an apology from the church our concern was that it was not made by the most senior cleric in Scotland at the time. However, the letter that we have received from John Deighan, which was addressed to Jim Johnston, states unequivocally that a clear and specific apology was made. The petition is in two parts, and as an apology has been made we should lay that part to rest. It is right that Michael McMahon and others are making representations in the background to encourage other actions that will help to bring comfort and closure to the individuals concerned. However, for the purpose of the committee, the call for an apology has been satisfied.
To be clear, convener, it is not only the Catholic Church that has not come through, it is Quarriers and others. We have focused on the Catholic Church, but that is a slight smoke screen, because other organisations were involved.
When the debate took place in November the files were not available, and they were not subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which came into force at the beginning of January. I am sure that INCAS will have considered that, but if it has not it certainly has new rights to request information under FOI that it did not have before.
I said in that debate that it would be good if Peter Peacock or the Parliament were able to say that from this day on it would be illegal to get rid of files or to lose pocket-money books and anything else that might assist the journey of children through different organisations. We have done so well that it would be a shame to thwart that amazing work. I am just wondering whether anyone knows where the final bits of the jigsaw fit in.
I agree entirely. We have to start asking questions about that, to get those final pieces to come together and to get some satisfaction for those who need that information. Apologies have been issued by the First Minister, by Quarriers and by the Catholic Church, and it is down to those who were affected whether they accept those apologies. I do not know that there is any more that we can do in that respect. There are more questions that we can ask about the information and about the work of the group that is considering the issue. Do members agree that we should write to the minister?
Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)
The next petition is PE695, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities have affordable, accessible local transport available to disabled people who cannot use public transport and to provide ring-fenced funding to allow local authorities and/or community groups to provide dial-a-ride projects for that purpose.
I see that there is a letter from Nicol Stephen, but I just wondered whether we could pass the papers on to the Equal Opportunities Committee, which is doing a disability inquiry. The issue of transport, and people being unable to access work and leisure, has figured largely in that inquiry. Could the Executive provide us with an update on its assessment of improved public transport concessions for people with disabilities?
I note from the papers that Jan Goodall has asked for an opportunity to comment on the responses. I assume that we should wait until we hear her response before we decide what further to do.
That is right. I am not sure whether the Equal Opportunities Committee's inquiry is considering this specific issue, but we might want to ask it to consider it. However, as Mike Watson says, we have to wait until we get a response from the petitioner, so that we know all the concerns in respect of the responses.
We have to wait for the petitioner to come back to us with her thoughts. The inquiry concerns anything that affects disabilities. We have been to Dundee and other places, and transport has come up constantly. It would be a good idea to give the papers to the Equal Opportunities Committee. As I am on that committee, I will mention it to the clerk and take the papers along with me.
Is there anything that precludes us from doing both those things? We could ask the petitioner to comment on the progress thus far while at the same time passing the information that we have so far to the Equal Opportunities Committee, given that its investigation is on-going. We will pass the papers for information rather than to add to that committee's workload.
The clerk and Cathy Peattie, the convener, would be interested.
If we sent the papers for information, that would allow us to wait for a response from the petitioner. We can add information as it becomes available.
We have moved the discussion forward. We have to acknowledge the positive letter from the minister, which means that we are doing our work. We should do both those things.
Are members happy with that?
Travelling Show People (PE698)
Our next petition is PE698, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce a national policy for travelling show people. At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee noted a response from the petitioner, which said:
Given the positive responses from the minister and the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, I suggest that we close the petition. We have done our job.
Are members happy that we close the petition?
Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland) (PE717)
Our next petition is PE717 on independent special education advice. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide adequate funding to allow organisations such as Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland) to continue its essential work across Scotland.
The Executive has announced that it will make available a further £250,000 for advocacy services for parents. That is a positive step and I am sure that ISEA will get its share of the money. If the petitioners are content, I think that we should close the petition.
Scottish Legal Aid Board (PE751)
PE751 by Ronald Mason calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to amend the rules on eligibility for legal aid so that they include an automatic right for the disabled.
I notice from SLAB's letter that it was meeting the DRC on 24 March. Do we know how that meeting went? If not, it would be useful to find out, so that we can decide whether we need to do anything more.
We have had no feedback at all.
The meeting was more than two months ago. We could ask each of them how it went—and see whether we get the same response, as there might be different versions. But seriously, could we write to both organisations, not just about the meeting but about how they think things stand as a result of the meeting?
We will write to both organisations and put the petition back on the agenda when the responses are received.
Screening (Heart Disorders) (PE773)
Our next petition is PE773 by Wilma Gunn, on behalf of Scottish Heart at Risk Testing, calling on the Scottish Parliament to introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that provision is made to offer screening for cardiomyopathy and all heart disorders to all people of 16 or over who are embarking on strenuous competitive sports, and to all families with a history of cardiac problems.
Should we write to the petitioners to ask for their views on the minister's letter? I was interested to note in the letter that the minister is
Are members happy that we do that?
National Anthem (PE788)
Petition PE788 by George Reid calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the introduction of a national anthem for Scotland. At its meeting on 24 November 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Executive. A response has now been received. Do members have any comments?
It is significant that the Executive has called this an "interesting" proposal. It is now up to the Public Petitions Committee to build on that interest, and I hope that we will be able to take the matter further.
I would like to nominate the song from Bowmore Primary School as a possible runner.
I suggest that we close the petition. The matter of which song is chosen will be controversial throughout Scotland. The people of Scotland have chosen their own song.
I find it a wee bit strange that the Executive has said that it finds the proposal "interesting" but that it is not going to do anything about it. It might have been helpful if the Executive had said why it was not going to pursue the matter. However, we cannot force the Executive to come up with a new national anthem or take the matter further so, unfortunately, we will have to close the petition.
Yes. Much as I would like the Executive to come up with something better than "Flower of Scotland", I think that we are stuck with it.
It takes us back to what was said to Stewart Stevenson. A member could lodge a member's bill to suggest one song or another if, after consultation, they were satisfied that a certain song was the best one. That could be a way for the proposal to proceed, if the petitioner could get a member to do that.
I got slated in the newspapers because I like "Flower of Scotland". I seem to remember that I got bad publicity because I said that it was a good song. I also received various letters.
An election might be the way to do it.
I find it rather sad that we do not have a national song. Everybody has their own idea of what a national song is and the Parliament could legislate for something. I do not know what we could do other than lodge a member's bill.
As things stand, we have a national anthem: it is "God Save the Queen".
That may be yours, John, but it is not mine. It is not the national anthem of anybody I know, either.
In all seriousness, that was the conclusion of the debate that we had before. It is established that we have a national anthem; yet, at sports grounds in Scotland, that national anthem is not played. Even if we legislated to have a national anthem, we could not force the organisations that play a tune before a football tournament to play it. They would not have to play the national anthem.
No, they would not have to play it, but things grow. Somebody has to start the ball rolling and the Parliament would have the legislative ability to do that. I wonder whether the Enterprise and Culture Committee would take the matter on board and push it forward.
But could that not be perceived as the politicians pushing something on to the public, who would want to choose a song that was relevant to their own circumstances? As the convener said, the organisers may choose to play a certain song at football matches, but at other events people do other things. There are times when we should not legislate but allow people to do what they feel most comfortable doing.
I am looking at this from a positive angle. We had the kids in earlier on with their petition. We saw in those kids' faces that they were happy and proud to be Scottish and it was great to see them.
The matter that those children's petition raised has been dealt with by a member of the Parliament pursuing a member's bill. The Executive did not support moves for a national holiday, but an individual member used what powers he had to take the issue forward with the support of many of his colleagues. It may well be that we can address the issue of a national anthem not by tying up a committee in that work because we want to find something to do with the petition, but by telling any member of the Scottish Parliament who feels strongly enough about it to lodge a proposal for a member's bill.
Perhaps, if Dennis Canavan's bill is successful or if the children who came to the committee had their way and there was a national holiday, a tune would arise. It might be about taking an anthem rather than being given it.
That is a good way of looking at the matter.
Wind Farm Construction (Public Inquiry) (PE800)
Our next petition is PE800 by William Robert Graham calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a public inquiry into wind farm construction and, in the meantime, to introduce an immediate moratorium on further wind farm developments. At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee agreed to seek an update from the Scottish Executive. That update has been received and sent to members.
I do not support the petition because I do not believe that a moratorium is appropriate. The Enterprise and Culture Committee, of which I am a member, held an inquiry into renewable energy, which concluded that wind farms will be an important factor in achieving the Executive's targets on renewables. They will not be the only factor, but they will be important, so there should not be a moratorium.
To be fair to the petitioner, we should at least give him the opportunity to respond to the responses that we have received before we consider closing the petition, whatever our views on the merits or otherwise of a moratorium.
Are members happy to do that?
Do you mean to close the petition?
No, we are not closing the petition.
We need to keep it open to get a response to Mike Watson's request for specific information and because of John Scott's point. We need to get more information before we can close it. Are we agreed?
That is our last petition. I thank members for attending.
Meeting closed at 11:47.
Previous
New Petitions